unifier comprar cialis generico online espana pate
unanimously seasons viagra online buy viagra online dresses http://pr-medicine.org/ Comments on: If a Person has Some Information and they Never Share it, Is There Still a Source? http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/ genealogy, software, ideas, and innovation Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Venita http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-935 Venita Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:52:42 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-935 In the end, all sources were created by people, weren't they? People created the formal document as well as the oral history. The question is, what is the reliability of each kind of source? Which information do you trust the most? Or does it matter? For me, the formally recorded document beats "mama said" by a long shot. Personally, I want to record all the stories about my ancestors, but not necessarily accept them as proof of any event except that a given person actually lived - or did he? Auntie left one little detail out of the story she wrote about her father - he had been born out of wedlock. (True example!) Yes, the man lived, but under two names. He was William Lewis in his homeland, and William L. Parry in America. His pre-immigration records could not be found unless one knew that little (unspeakable for Auntie!!) fact. That little omission cast a shadow of doubt on everything else she wrote about him. What else did she omit? Or what parts of the story did she create as a cover-up for reality? There are all kinds of sources available to family historians. The challenge is to recognize that not all sources have the same reliability value. If we truly want to confirm the genealogy assertions we make, we need to use the most reliable, most accessible sources available. Which one would you trust? Auntie's story or the government birth record for William LEWIS? I'll take the document, thank you. Now, how is the best way to record it....? I like the bibliography style, ala Reunion. I like a list of sources that I can attach to many people and events in my database. I then expand the source reference with notes and/or memos for the individual when I choose. FYI, I am fluent in both Windows/PAF and Mac/Reunion. In the end, all sources were created by people, weren’t they? People created the formal document as well as the oral history. The question is, what is the reliability of each kind of source? Which information do you trust the most? Or does it matter? For me, the formally recorded document beats “mama said” by a long shot.

Personally, I want to record all the stories about my ancestors, but not necessarily accept them as proof of any event except that a given person actually lived – or did he? Auntie left one little detail out of the story she wrote about her father – he had been born out of wedlock. (True example!) Yes, the man lived, but under two names. He was William Lewis in his homeland, and William L. Parry in America. His pre-immigration records could not be found unless one knew that little (unspeakable for Auntie!!) fact. That little omission cast a shadow of doubt on everything else she wrote about him. What else did she omit? Or what parts of the story did she create as a cover-up for reality?

There are all kinds of sources available to family historians. The challenge is to recognize that not all sources have the same reliability value. If we truly want to confirm the genealogy assertions we make, we need to use the most reliable, most accessible sources available. Which one would you trust? Auntie’s story or the government birth record for William LEWIS? I’ll take the document, thank you.

Now, how is the best way to record it….? I like the bibliography style, ala Reunion. I like a list of sources that I can attach to many people and events in my database. I then expand the source reference with notes and/or memos for the individual when I choose.

FYI, I am fluent in both Windows/PAF and Mac/Reunion.

]]>
By: GeneJ http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-876 GeneJ Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:28:32 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-876 What a wonderful blog. Well done! I'm also of the opinion that people are sources. And yes!--thank you Barbara Schenck for commenting about oral family history. --GJ What a wonderful blog. Well done!

I’m also of the opinion that people are sources. And yes!–thank you Barbara Schenck for commenting about oral family history. –GJ

]]>
By: Rita Martin http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-856 Rita Martin Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:51:45 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-856 "Evidence Explained" - the current 'source Bible' defines source as "artifacts, books, digital files, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites etc. Sources are classified according to their physical form: original or derivative" I would definitely agree with Elizabeth Shown Mills on people being able to be sources. “Evidence Explained” – the current ‘source Bible’ defines source as “artifacts, books, digital files, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites etc. Sources are classified according to their physical form: original or derivative”

I would definitely agree with Elizabeth Shown Mills on people being able to be sources.

]]>
By: Denise Pagel Moskovitz http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-854 Denise Pagel Moskovitz Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:31:27 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-854 If you need an original source copy for something to be true, then every documented record that no longer exists is an unacceptable source. (i e Personally copied from county record book in 1970; county records destroyed in 1980.) It is simply impossible to prove every bit of information you get about your family with a written source. Your mother's written testimony that your great-grandmother's eyes were blue is not more valid than her oral testimony to that fact. *She* is the source of the information -- not the paper she wrote it down on. It is because a person *must* be a source that the reliability standards and source weighting is an important part of our research. You're trying to make the data fit your description instead of coming up with a description that fits the width of the available data. If you need an original source copy for something to be true, then every documented record that no longer exists is an unacceptable source. (i e Personally copied from county record book in 1970; county records destroyed in 1980.)

It is simply impossible to prove every bit of information you get about your family with a written source. Your mother’s written testimony that your great-grandmother’s eyes were blue is not more valid than her oral testimony to that fact. *She* is the source of the information — not the paper she wrote it down on. It is because a person *must* be a source that the reliability standards and source weighting is an important part of our research.

You’re trying to make the data fit your description instead of coming up with a description that fits the width of the available data.

]]>
By: Barbara Schenck http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-853 Barbara Schenck Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:51:11 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-853 I wouldn't be as dogmatic about denying people as "sources." In general usage, people are frequently described as reliable or unreliable sources of information. And if you split hairs and make your definition exclude a regularly used definition of the word, I think you find peoples' eyes glaze over. Besides, family stories come down to us often in the oral telling. They exist as stories to help us understand ourselves and our backgrounds. They may even have kernels of truth in them! I understand and accept your cereal box notion of sources, but I wouldn't be that limited in my description. I believe that people can be sources of information. My father was the source of many family stories that he never wrote down. My grandmother was the source of lots of stories she told to me and my children. I have written some down. I have taped some. I have passed others on as oral testimony. The stories that are written down exist outside my having to deliver them -- but they do exist, once told. in the memories of my children and grandchildren. They are also, granted, prone to mistelling and misinterpretation and mistakes. But they still exist and they traveled from one person to another through the spoken word. Like Michael, I think the informant or the storyteller is a source (even though the information passed on may be 'derived' from earlier tellings). I wouldn’t be as dogmatic about denying people as “sources.”

In general usage, people are frequently described as reliable or unreliable sources of information. And if you split hairs and make your definition exclude a regularly used definition of the word, I think you find peoples’ eyes glaze over.

Besides, family stories come down to us often in the oral telling. They exist as stories to help us understand ourselves and our backgrounds. They may even have kernels of truth in them!

I understand and accept your cereal box notion of sources, but I wouldn’t be that limited in my description. I believe that people can be sources of information. My father was the source of many family stories that he never wrote down. My grandmother was the source of lots of stories she told to me and my children. I have written some down. I have taped some. I have passed others on as oral testimony. The stories that are written down exist outside my having to deliver them — but they do exist, once told. in the memories of my children and grandchildren. They are also, granted, prone to mistelling and misinterpretation and mistakes. But they still exist and they traveled from one person to another through the spoken word.

Like Michael, I think the informant or the storyteller is a source (even though the information passed on may be ‘derived’ from earlier tellings).

]]>
By: Michael Hait http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-852 Michael Hait Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:37:02 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-852 Here's a thought that might change the definition a little: What about a face-to-face interview, that is not recorded or transcribed at all? That is to say, I interview my grandparents and then input the information directly into my genealogy software. Using your definition, the database file would be the original source, but I would have to argue that the interview with the informant would be the source. Make no mistake, I did not mean to imply that this lack of note-taking constituted responsible genealogy, but so very few of our sources are actually created by responsible genealogists. Here’s a thought that might change the definition a little:

What about a face-to-face interview, that is not recorded or transcribed at all? That is to say, I interview my grandparents and then input the information directly into my genealogy software. Using your definition, the database file would be the original source, but I would have to argue that the interview with the informant would be the source. Make no mistake, I did not mean to imply that this lack of note-taking constituted responsible genealogy, but so very few of our sources are actually created by responsible genealogists.

]]>